If you're referring to the ability to play an instrument, as far as I can tell, they are both equally 'talented' musicians. Do you play an instrument? Pick up a guitar and try learning some Kiss and Rolling Stones songs. Then count how many songs are structured like this:
Verse | Chorus | Verse | Chorus | Boring Guitar Solo | Verse | Chorus
How innovative.
Both of their songs are generally comprised of 'a few chords' and are not that difficult to learn. I don't consider guitar solo-wank sessions talent mind you (quite the opposite); I'm just trying to get a handle on your definition.
Trite lyrics? Again, which band are you talking about? Both have pretty boring lyrics imo.
Quote:
|
Also, how many bands really list Kiss as an influence ... perhaps in theatrics (a la Marilyn Manson) but not so much musically.
|
Many metal and rock bands site Kiss as an influence, at very least as many as bands that site the 'Stones. Kiss is known more for their theatrics, yes, but that doesn't detract from their influence on a generation of current musicians.
Quote:
|
What do you consider talented? Somebody that challenges the norms of their times? Well, the Stones did that in their time and had the talent and longevity to continue on long after many of their contemporaries fell by the wayside. Why do you think that is?
|
Again, replace "the Stones" with "Kiss" and shut up.
You bash Kiss for being exactly what the Rolling Stones are. Honestly, wtf are you arguing here? Just because you have some phaglust for Mick Jagger doesn't mean they are actually any better than Kiss to anybody else except Jagger groupies like yourself.
Quote:
I'm thinkin' that your one of those counter culturists who probably listens to some techno-industrial shit that indicates more of a knowledge of technology than music talent. Whatever! 
|
And why are you 'thinkin'' this? Because I've discussed drugs in previous threads? Because of my avatar? I like anything that sounds good to me. Relevance?
Linear Mode
